DELIVERY AND TRANSFER OF TITLE 185 



property sold. The delivery may be constructive or sym- 

 bolical, and the transfer of the goods sold to the actual pos- 

 session of the purchaser does not necessarily effect a legal 

 delivery and change of title. The question as to when de- 

 livery is to be effective is determined by the intention of the 

 parties, and this intention will be gathered from the sur- 

 rounding circumstances and the conduct of the parties if 

 the terms of the contract are not clearly expressed in words. 

 If delivery is to be made at a certain place, the transfer of 

 title will not be effected until such delivery is made. If each 

 of the parties has done all that he is required to do under the 

 contract, and there is no condition expressed in the contract, 

 title will pass to the buyer as soon as the agreement is con- 

 cluded even though payment or delivery, or both payment 

 and delivery, be delayed; but if the seller is required by the 

 contract to perform some service as to the logs or lumber 

 subsequent to the sale, or the logs are to be scaled or the 

 lumber measured as a basis for payment, title will not ordi- 

 narily pass until these requirements are fulfilled. 1 Actual 

 delivery of all the logs in a lot is not essential to a valid sale 

 of the lot. A part may be delivered, or there may be a 

 transfer of possession by merely pointing out or otherwise 

 designating the logs which are sold within a stream or on its 

 banks. A scale or survey of the logs in the manner agreed 

 upon by the parties will ordinarily effect the symbolical de- 

 livery and vest the title in the purchaser. 2 If the contract 

 does not definitely fix the time of delivery, a reasonable time 

 after the sale will be allowed and required. 3 A provision 



1. Bay v. Schmidt, 7 Ga. App. 380, 66 S. E. 1035; Davis v. Cox, 13 Ga. App. 509 



79 S. E. 383; Sempel v. Lbr. Co. 141 Iowa 586, 121 N. W. 23; State v. 

 Meehan, 92 Minn. 283, 100 N. W. 6; Martin v. Hurlbut, 9 Minn. 142; 

 Strong v. Dunning, 175 Pa. St. 586, 34 Atl. 919. Carter v. Tie Co., 184 Mo. 

 App. 523, 170 S. W. 445; See also Grant v. Merchants Etc. Bank, 35 Mich. 

 515; Creelman Ltar. Co. v. De Lisle, 107 Mo. App. 618 

 82 S. W. 205; Kurd v. Cook, 75 N. Y. 454; Gatzmer v. Moyer, 9 Pa. Gas. 5*7,. 

 13 Atl. 540; Cook v. Van Home, 76 Wis. 520, 44 N. W. 767; Log Co. v. Lan<t 

 Co. 145 Wis. 286, 129. N. W. 1100; Coles v. Lbr. Co. 150 N. C. 183, 63 S. E. 

 736. Chaney v. Sutherland-Innes Co., 80 Ark. 572. 98 S. W. 967. 



2. Bethel Steam Mill Co. v. Brown, 57 Me. 9, 99 Am. Dec. 572; Boynton v. Veazie;. 



24 Me. 286; Jewett v. Warren, 12 Mass. 300, 7 Am. Dec. 74; Brewster v. Leith," 

 1 Minn. 56. See also Gasper v. Heimbach, 53 Minn. 414, 55 N. W. 559. As 

 to a raft see Williams v. Johnson, 26 N. C. 233; Hungerford v. Winnebago 

 Tug Etc. Co. 33 Wis. 303; Nolan v. County (Okl.) 152 Pac. 63: Lhr. Co. v. 

 Cameron, 45 Tex. Civ. App. 350, 101 S. W. 488; Middlebrook v. Thompson 

 19 U. C. Q. B. 307. 



3. Yellow Poplar Lbr. Co. v. Stephens, 69 S. W. 715, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 621 ; Chapman 



v. Ingram, 30 Wis. 290. See also Irish v. Pauley, (Calif. 1897) 48 Pac. 321; 

 Peterson v. South Shore Lbr. Co., 105 Wis. 106, 81 N. W. 141. Lbr. Co. v. 

 Magne-Silica Co. (Cal.) 112 Pac. 1089; Chunn v. Lbr. Co.. 175 Mo. App 641 

 158 S. W. 94. 



